Who Really Collects in the Wage Garnishment Game?

I was a consumer bankruptcy attorney for years during the global financial crisis of 2008 (pre-Affordable Care Act). Around 40% of the bankruptcies were caused by medical debts uncovered by insurance. With the effectiveness of the ACA, the number of bankruptcies in Colorado plummeted.

My comment on “State Lawmakers Seek Restraints on Wage Garnishment for Medical Debt” (Feb. 20)? BC Services acts as if it is garnishing these wages to keep rural hospitals, medical providers, etc. in business. The likely reality is that BC Services (and other collection operations) takes “90-day-overdue” bills — which may or may not have ever been delivered to the patient; usually disregards whether the hospital has offered the patient a reasonable repayment schedule; and then keeps 50% or more of the debt, along with its attorneys’ fees and costs. The medical provider receives very little of the money sent to collections.

— Bill Myers, Denver

On Work Requirements: Working Out Solutions

Eighty hours a month works out to about 20 hours a week, and I think if people can work or study from home, they should be able to meet the requirements (“New Medicaid Work Rules Likely To Hit Middle-Aged Adults Hard,” Feb. 11). More importantly, though, “navigators” will help people get exemptions if they qualify. I wonder why there is so much moaning about the law and nothing about the means to fix the problems it creates. It seems like a lot of hot air. We know it’s a problem. So how about exploring solutions?

— Therese Shellabarger, North Hollywood, California

The Flip Side of a Drug’s Benefits

I read Phillip Reese’s report on anti-anxiety medications, adults who take them, and their concerns about this administration’s policies regarding them (“As More Americans Embrace Anxiety Treatment, MAHA Derides Medications,” Feb. 23). If the anti-anxiety medications provide solace to adults such as Sadia Zapp — a 40-year-old woman who survived cancer — then she should be able to continue them. Unfortunately, the same is not true for many other people, particularly patients such as myself.

When I was 16, I went through an unnecessarily painful and traumatic year. I was sent away from home three times, sent to a wilderness therapy “troubled teen industry” camp that has now been shut down, sent to a new boarding school that I hated, and was away from my family for many months. Of course, I felt depressed and anxious, so my psychiatrist at Kaiser prescribed citalopram. At first, it caused extreme agitation and violent ideation, stuff that is commonly reported to the point it has an . Thankfully, it calmed down. And when I lowered the dose, my life was calm, stable, and productive.

Unfortunately, that did not last long. Over time, the effects wore out, so I tried to go off. I was not given any safety instructions on how to taper slowly and safely, so I went off multiple times. Each time caused extreme withdrawal symptoms, including self-harm, crying spells, and worse depression than ever before. Also, the sexual “side effects” persisted and even worsened upon cessation to this day. It is a , and it is very rarely covered. While the worst symptoms of withdrawal went away, I still live with a worsened sexuality than a young adult my age is supposed to have.

Back to the article, which seems to focus on adults. Its only named profile is Zapp, and when it cites statistics, it begins at age 18. Solely showing statistics of adults is unethical because it obscures the high and rising prescription rates among minors. Minors are also more likely to suffer permanent developmental damage to their sexualities and experience suicidal ideation. This is a major problem that warrants further conversations.

When covering the downsides of SSRIs, the article mentioned only mild side effects, like upset stomach, decreased libido, and mild discontinuation effects, without covering the major concerns of suicidal ideation, akathisia, PSSD, and severe withdrawal. I believe that framing antidepressants as an unequivocal good is equivalent to framing them as an unequivocal evil; both misguide patients through harm and deception.

Lastly, I want to finish on this by the brilliant psychiatrist Awais Aftab.

— Eli Malakoff, San Francisco

A Rigged System?

Insurers pay these exorbitant amounts because they set them in the first place (Bill of the Month: “Even Patients Are Shocked by the Prices Their Insurers Will Pay — And It Costs All of Us,” March 3). They have been doing this for years. I learned this over 15 years ago, when I dislocated and broke my elbow. I had no insurance and, as a “self-pay” patient, paid the surgeon, hospital, and radiology center myself. They set the prices high enough that people will buy insurance out of fear, ensuring they make a profit.

The first thing I learned was that there is not a set price for all; for the insured, it is a fixed system controlled by contracts and codes. As a self-pay patient, the cost may vary.

It was late in the evening and I tripped over a snow shovel, slammed my arm up against a gate post, and it was hanging like a puppet without a string! I called an ambulance and, at the hospital, they strapped me up and told me that I must see the orthopedic surgeon the next day. He sent me to a radiology facility for an X-ray; I paid for it and took it to the surgeon. When I received a bill from the radiology center, I called to say that I had paid. They said it was for the radiologist (who, as far as I knew, never analyzed it). The contract with the insurance company required that every patient had to be billed, whether or not a radiologist reviewed scans. If not, they would lose their contract.

My elbow was dislocated, with a fracture, and I needed surgery. The surgeon’s office called the hospital for pricing, and he told me it would be about $2,000 for outpatient surgery. I called the hospital to confirm the appointment for outpatient surgery, and they wanted $8,000! When I objected, and told them what the surgeon had quoted, they checked. “Oh, you are a self-pay!” Cost would be $2,000. I gave them my card number and prepaid it before they could change their minds.

I had a friend in New Jersey who had the very same injury and surgery. She had insurance through her employer, and she paid more in copays than I paid when paying directly.

Insurance companies are SHARKS!

— Stephanie Hunt-Crowley, Chamberet, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France (formerly Frederick, Maryland)

US vs. Canada

Re: the article about nurses moving to Canada (“‘You Aren’t Trapped’: Hundreds of US Nurses Choose Canada Over Trump’s America,” Feb. 26). You neglect the “rest of the story” — or maybe you don’t know it? I had my medical office in Los Angeles for about 30 years and had dozens of Canadians come to L.A., where some had to self-pay for care, but chose to because of the superior level of medicine available. One man, a son of a gynecologist in Canada, had a draining abscess from a years-old appendectomy. The reason was, after investigation, that the Canadian practice had used silk suture (organic material), which can harbor microbes and carry a greater risk of infection. The trend has been to discontinue silk in favor of nylon. The Canadians were obliged to “use up” the silk suture they had before switching to nylon. The surgeons at my hospital were astounded.

— Kathryn Sobieski, Jackson, Wyoming

On the NET Recovery Device’s Track Record — And Detractors

I read your piece about the NET Recovery device with interest (Payback: Tracking Opioid Cash: “Maker of Device To Treat Addiction Withdrawal Seeks Counties’ Opioid Settlement Cash,” March 18), and I am grateful to you for pointing to one of our many success stories — the story of Michelle Warfield, whom the NET device helped get off opioids.

I also wanted to note a couple of instances where I see the facts differently than they were portrayed in your piece. Your piece seemed to imply that the NET device is new, and I wanted to note that the device has been around for decades (it helped Eric Clapton and members of The Who and the Rolling Stones get sober back in their heyday), and is based on a proven technology that stimulates both the brain and the vagus nerve to help patients with their cravings and withdrawal. There are countless studies that prove the power of neurostimulation, including that showed significant reductions in opioid and stimulant use without medication for a polysubstance population receiving at least 24 hours of stimulation.

I also noted you quoted detractors of our device, and I’d simply urge anyone looking at the issue of opioid addiction abatement to consider who those detractors are; organizations that now find themselves competing for grant dollars from counties increasingly choosing to fund innovation. It is not surprising that those with the most to lose financially would prefer the status quo. But the counties and jails leading this charge are doing so because they have seen what works, and their constituents, real patients, are the proof.

The success stories of our patients speak for themselves, and our only motivation at NET Recovery is to help as many people as possible get truly clean and sober by helping to break that initial grip the opioids have on them. When the NET device works, and it works an astounding 98% of the time (producing a clinically meaningful reduction in opioid withdrawal symptom severity in one hour), our patients are experiencing the return of choice and true freedom.

Thank you for your interest in our work and for the coverage you provide.

— Joe Winston, NET Recovery CEO, Costa Mesa, California

Education Is the First Step in Lowering Health Care Prices

After reading this article about making hospital prices more transparent, I realized the information alone could help drive medical prices down (“Trump Required Hospitals To Post Their Prices for Patients. Mostly It’s the Industry Using the Data,” Feb. 17). Your publication shows good use of evidence-based research — it’s timeless and informative.

As a student at Thomas Jefferson University on the path to serving in the health care arena, I understand the struggles and complexities of medical decision-making. In the medical setting, the topic of price is always overshadowed by patient care and clear communication on the part of both professionals and patients, and it does not reflect how patients would navigate comparison-shopping for care. Almost every patient relies on the help of a physician or gets help from an insurance network and not from online price matching.

I believe that many people should engage with this article even if they aren’t entering the health profession; it would benefit everyone. Although price transparency may help insurers and care providers more than patients, if their goal is to lower prices, they must look beyond the simple posting or sharing of prices. I appreciate the effort to try to bring awareness to this major issue and encourage thoughtful policy discussion about lowering medical prices.

— Jan Rodriguez, Philadelphia

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Philip Stewart, a Rocky Mountain Laboratories researcher focused on tick-borne diseases, said he retired two years earlier than planned because of hurdles that made it too challenging to do his job well.

Alexa Romberg, an addiction prevention scientist focused on tobacco, said she “lost a great deal” of the research she oversaw when federal grants vanished.

“If one is thinking about the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ agenda and the prevention of chronic disease,” Romberg said, “tobacco use is the No. 1 contributor to early morbidity and mortality that we can prevent.”

The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, with a to “enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness.”

Over decades, the value of the NIH may be the one thing everyone in Washington has agreed on. Lawmakers have routinely boosted its funding.

“I’m so pleased to be associated with NIH,” former Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican and one of the NIH’s biggest champions in Congress, shortly before he retired.

But in President Donald Trump’s second term, the NIH has seen an exodus of scientists like Ernstoff, Stewart, and Romberg. Federal data shows the NIH lost about 4,400 people — more than 20% of its workforce. Scientists say the departures harm the U.S.’ ability to respond to disease outbreaks, develop treatments for chronic illnesses, and confront the nation’s most pressing public health problems.

“People are going to get hurt,” said Sylvia Chou, a scientist who worked at the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland, for over 15 years before she left in January. “There’s going to be a lot more health challenges and even deaths, because we need science in order to help people get healthy.”

Why They’re Leaving

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News interviewed a half dozen scientists who said they quit their jobs years before they’d planned to because of the tumult of 2025.

Only a few years ago, the NIH workforce was steadily growing, from roughly 17,700 employees in fiscal year 2019 to around 21,100 in fiscal 2024, federal data shows. Under Trump, those gains have been slashed.

The Trump administration enacted a campaign to purge government workers perceived as disloyal to the president. People were fired or encouraged to leave. Officials instituted a months-long freeze on hiring.

The NIH workforce has plummeted to about 17,100 people — its lowest level in at least two decades. Most who left weren’t fired. Roughly 4 in 5 either retired, quit, had appointments that expired, or transferred to a different job, according to federal data.

Scientists watched with dread as their colleagues were forced to terminate research funds for topics the Trump administration deemed off-limits. Across NIH labs, routine work stalled. They said they faced major delays in accessing equipment and supplies. Travel authorizations were slowed or denied.

Agency staff were instructed not to communicate with anyone outside the agency. When they could talk again, they were subject to greater constraints on what they could present to the public.

And under the administration’s agenda to eliminate “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” references to minorities or health equity were purged from NIH-funded research. Initiatives to protect Americans’ health were gutted. Among them: support for early-career scientists, ways to prevent harm from HIV or substance use, and efforts to study how different populations’ immune systems respond to disease.

, Chou and Romberg were among a group of NIH scientists who said they resigned in protest of an administration “that treats science not as a process for building knowledge, but as a means to advance its political agenda.”

A ‘Fundamental Destruction’

Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement that the agency had shifted to focus on evidence-based research over “ideological agendas.” She said the NIH is still recruiting “the best and brightest” and advancing high-quality science to “deliver breakthroughs for the American people.” The federal health department oversees NIH.

“A major reset was overdue. HHS has taken action to streamline operations, reduce redundancies, and return to pre-pandemic employment levels,” Hilliard said.

Many scientists, however, question whether the NIH can still fulfill its public mission.

“There’s been a fundamental destruction,” said Daniel Dulebohn, a researcher who spent nearly two decades at Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana. It’s going to “take a very, very long time to rebuild.”

Dulebohn left the NIH’s infectious disease and allergy institute in September.

He analyzed how molecules and proteins interact in diseases, such as Lyme disease, HIV, and Alzheimer’s — information that’s key for new treatments. Dulebohn was a resource for scientists when they hit walls trying to understand, for example, if molecules could prevent infection or react to a treatment.

Now he and his wife are living off savings in Mexico with their three young kids. Dulebohn’s thinking about what’s next. One option: real estate.

The expert in biochemical analysis operated equipment few others know how to use. His exit further depletes resources in the specialty.

“It’s clear when someone comes out with a drug and now you’ve just cured a disease. But you never know which ones could have been cured,” Dulebohn said. “We don’t know what we’ve lost.”

Laura Stark, a Vanderbilt University associate professor who specializes in the history of medicine and science, said wiping out NIH staff will propel a shift toward private-industry research, with its profit motives, “as opposed to actually helping American health.”

“We just don’t have people who are now able to pursue research for the public good,” Stark said.

From Support to Scrutiny

Stark said the seeds of the present-day NIH were planted during World War II when the U.S. government spearheaded an effort to mass-produce the antibiotic penicillin to save soldiers from infections.

The agency has played a central role in lifesaving discoveries and treatments — including for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

With bipartisan backing from Congress, the NIH budget has grown significantly over time, sitting at $48.7 billion for fiscal 2026. The NIH allocates roughly 11% of its budget for agency scientists. About 80% is awarded to universities and other institutions.

The money may be there, but the people who get it out the door are not, scientists said.

Jennifer Troyer left the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, on Dec. 31, after working in various positions at the NIH for about 25 years. The division she led reviews research and oversees grants to organizations studying the human genome — or a person’s complete set of genes — and how it can be used to benefit health.

Last year, she said, her division lost about two-thirds of its staff. “There really are not enough people there right now to actually get the work done,” Troyer said. “It’s extreme harm.”

She decided to quit the day Trump issued an in August that prohibited the use of grants to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” what it described as “anti-American values.” It also allowed political appointees to review all funding decisions.

“I wasn’t going to operate a division under those orders,” Troyer said. She hasn’t figured out her next career steps.

‘Enough Is Enough’

Research aligned with the administration’s stated priorities has suffered.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease — a tick-borne infection that can cause debilitating lifelong symptoms — . In December, Kennedy said the government had long dismissed patients burdened with a disease that in the U.S. are diagnosed with annually.

That same month, Stewart, who had dedicated his career to ticks and Lyme disease as a federal scientist, retired early. He’d worked for the government for 27 years. Stewart said workforce cuts and travel delays stalled his efforts to confirm how far Lyme-carrying ticks had spread — information that could help doctors recognize symptoms sooner.

Stewart was a lead scientist on research published last year , or deer tick, in Montana. It was the first time the tick best known for transmitting Lyme disease had been confirmed in the state. He wanted to determine if the discovery was a fluke or an indicator that the species was gaining ground.

“The advice we’ve been getting is, ‘Put your head down below the trench line. Don’t look. Don’t peek over and risk getting shot,’” Stewart said. “At what point do you finally say, ‘Enough is enough’ and ‘We’re not being effective anymore’?”

Scientists said those early in their careers are looking abroad for jobs and training. People who want to stay in the U.S. are running into problems getting hired because of cuts to research grants and uncertainty about funding.

Collectively, people studying diseases warn the U.S. could lose its long-held position as the global leader in biomedical research, with devastating impact.

Stanley Perlman, a University of Iowa virologist who studies pediatric infectious diseases, said that title earned the nation more than prestige; it drew top scientists from the world over to the U.S. to study diseases that particularly affect people here.

There’s no guarantee halted research will be picked up elsewhere, whether by private industry or other countries. If others are doing that work, Americans could face delays in seeing benefits, he said.

“If you don’t have access to how the work was done,” Perlman said, “it’s harder to reproduce and adapt it for your country.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Sylvia Chou, 51, Maryland

Program director, National Cancer Institute

Sylvia Chou specializes in communication between patients and their health care providers, and social media’s role in public health. She joined the federal government in 2007 as a fellow and became a civil servant in 2010.

She left her National Cancer Institute job in January, she said, because the “work is no longer based on facts or truth.”

After President Donald Trump returned to office, Chou said, health communication scientists like her were falsely accused of “essentially doing propaganda work.” The administration’s “anti-DEI hysteria,” she said, referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion, meant research funded by the National Institutes of Health was flagged and scrubbed of references to “equity, vulnerable, underserved, poor, even communities of color, minorities.”

She said the agency’s climate in 2025 brought to mind her childhood in Taiwan, when the island was still ruled by an authoritarian regime.

“I could see the difference between a time when, you know, we have a choral competition and we have to sing the same songs to revere the leader of the country, to suddenly they say you can sing any song you want,” Chou said. “I came to this country in part because there was so much opportunity to think freely.”

“To see us going backwards,” she added, “it just made me feel like I have limited time on this earth and I cannot participate anymore inside the system.”

---

‘One Hurdle After Another’

Philip Stewart, 60, Montana

Staff scientist, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Philip Stewart’s work was about understanding the pathogens ticks carry that make people and animals sick.

That often started with walks through tall grass searching for the arachnids. He analyzed them back at Rocky Mountain Laboratories.

When Trump entered office in 2025, Stewart experienced repeated disruptions to his work.

“It’s been one hurdle after another. Just when you’ve gotten over one and you think it’s finally behind you, another hurdle pops up,” Stewart said. “I don’t see that changing.”

NIH workers responsible for buying laboratory supplies were fired. As a result, Stewart said, he faced delays in getting the basics, including materials used to identify tick species.

Travel bans in early 2025 threatened his fieldwork. When those bans lifted, Stewart said, for the first time in his career he needed a presidential appointee’s approval to travel. Amid last year’s government shutdown, Stewart missed his only opportunity in the year to collect ticks from deer at hunting stations — his best chance to see if deer ticks had become established in Montana.

The review process for scientists to share their research became more burdensome.

He said scientists have debated whether they should try to stay and work within the system, adding that, if everyone leaves, “no cures get found.”

“If I saw a way to stay on and be useful and perhaps to protest, then I think I would’ve stayed,” Stewart said. “But I don’t see any of those alternatives.”

---

‘Losing a Lot of Expertise’

Alexa Romberg, 48, Maryland

Deputy branch chief, National Institute on Drug Abuse

Alexa Romberg is a scientist who specializes in preventing the use of and addiction to tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and cannabis. The harms that stem from substance use or addiction don’t affect all Americans equally, she said.

Romberg left her “dream job” at the National Institute on Drug Abuse in December, she said, because Trump policies had compromised the research she helped oversee. Among other things, Romberg said, grants were terminated under an initiative she led to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minorities related to substance use. Pending applications were also pulled, she said, adding, “I couldn’t be effective from the inside in actively really preserving the science.”

Romberg said her work was undone even though it was consistent with “what the NIH leadership is saying that they want.” In August, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya on priorities that included “solution-oriented approaches in health disparities research.”

Before the upheaval throughout 2025, she thought she would work at NIDA for the rest of her career.

“We’re losing a lot of expertise,” Romberg said. “Both scientific,” she added, and “institutional knowledge.”

---

Research ‘for the Benefit of Our Society’

Marc Ernstoff, 73, Maryland and Vermont

Branch chief, National Cancer Institute

Marc Ernstoff spent most of his career in academia before joining the National Cancer Institute in 2020. He led a team of scientists who oversaw grants for research into how the immune system responds to cancer, with the goal of developing drugs that extend patients’ lives.

“I felt that it was important for me to help define a national agenda in immuno-oncology and to give back to a country that I love by working as a civil servant,” Ernstoff said.

Under Trump, the NIH became a “hostile work environment.” Projects with “no weaknesses” were denied funding. Ernstoff left because of those challenges and because he was denied permission to work remotely. He now has a part-time position at Dartmouth Health in New Hampshire.

Leveraging a person’s immune system to fight off cancer is “just the beginning of the story,” Ernstoff said. Understanding how the immune system works — and the environmental and other factors that affect it — all “goes into developing better therapeutics for patients.”

“In my opinion, the government has a responsibility to support this kind of research for the benefit of our society,” he said.

---

Eyeing Less Stress, Better Pay

Daniel Dulebohn, 45, Montana

Staff scientist, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

At Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Daniel Dulebohn studied how molecules come together in infections and diseases. He helped agency researchers across the nation get insight needed for new discoveries and treatments.

Dulebohn said he worked for the government because he knew his research wouldn’t be steered by the pressure to make money. He had planned to stay indefinitely.

“You’re trying to cure a disease or understand something fundamental about biology,” Dulebohn said.

But then his work began to feel insecure, especially as as inept, corrupt, and partisan.

“Reading the news and hearing people discuss the validity of vaccines,” he said, made him think, “Do we need iron lungs again, or people in wheelchairs, to say, ‘Huh, maybe vaccines are a good idea’? I mean, I don’t know; for me, it was just too much.”

He added federal researchers typically have other options for jobs with bigger paychecks.

Dulebohn left his job in September. He’s taking a year off to think about next options with his wife and their three young kids. Dulebohn said he’s considering going into real estate full-time, which until recently was a weekend hobby.

“It’s a lot less stress,” he said. “Pay is better.”

---

‘Susceptible to Political Decision-Making’

Jennifer Troyer, 57, Maryland

Division director, National Human Genome Research Institute

Jennifer Troyer’s work for the NIH most recently involved reviewing research and overseeing funding awarded to institutions for genomics research. Genomics studies all of a person’s genes to better understand health and disease risk.

She called it quits at the end of December, more than two decades after she arrived. She left for one reason, she said: “The way that the NIH is making the agreement to fund science is now susceptible to political decision-making in a way that it was not before.”

“NIH is looking at not the value of the science but whether the science falls within particular political or socially-acceptable-to-this-administration constructs,” she said. “Not whether it’s valuable for human health but whether it might offend somebody.”

For example, she saw HHS move to to Harvard after alleging that it had shown “deliberate indifference” to antisemitism on campus. Early-career investigators from minority backgrounds lost their research dollars because the money was awarded under programs to make the science workforce more diverse.

The loss of staff means the NIH has “lost so much of that institutional knowledge and leadership, which is not something that is easy or can be learned overnight,” she said.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

We Have Invested Too Much To Let Research Programs Die Quietly

I have dedicated my life to research, but now that work, along with the trust, data, and progress behind it, is at risk (“NIH Grant Disruptions Slow Down Breast Cancer Research,” Feb. 3).

As a rheumatologist and researcher, I have spent decades studying lupus — a chronic autoimmune disease that can affect nearly every organ system, producing symptoms that are often unpredictable and difficult to manage. Its impact on a patient’s quality of life is profound: Nearly 90% of people with lupus report being unable to maintain full-time work, while many also face interruptions in education or career progression.

But funding uncertainty from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other federal programs means that the thousands of patients involved in my research, along with millions of patients nationwide, are at risk. While I appreciate the increase in lupus research funding included in the recently passed congressional funding package, funding disruptions persist nationwide, and recovery takes time.

Increased funding is not like a light switch that we can just turn back on. It will take a lot of time to recruit back those we lost. That doesn’t include the young investigators who would have entered the field and are now lost. It takes time to build back the broken trust and infrastructure needed to keep participants engaged and ensure reliable data.

Medical research connects the bedside to the database to the policymaker’s desk. Without it, we are blind to the very problems we most urgently need to solve. The window to save these programs is closing. We must act now before it’s too late.

— S. Sam Lim, Atlanta

Knocking Down Barriers to Long-Term Hospital Care

For many Americans, being released from their initial hospital stay is just the beginning of their care journey. Depending on the complexity of one’s condition and the clinical need for more specialized post-acute services such as ventilation, long-term care hospitals, or LTCHs, offer highly personalized care to individuals recovering from a catastrophic illness or injury (Broken Rehab: “They Need a Ventilator To Stay Alive. Getting One Can Be a Nightmare,” Dec. 2).

LTCHs play a critical role in the nation’s health care system by providing complex, resource-intensive care to patients leaving acute-care hospitals but who still need sustained support and treatment. Not only do LTCHs help patients who are dependent on ventilation, have complex wounds, or have multiple organ failure, they also serve as a relief valve in our nation’s hospital system by helping free up beds and resources at general hospitals.

However, the ability to access this vital form of care is becoming increasingly difficult — underscoring the need for lawmakers in Washington to act. Since 2016, over 100 LTCHs have closed due to chronic underpayments amid higher costs. This has been exacerbated by Congress’ decision to implement changes to how it reimburses LTCHs for its beneficiaries. As a result, patients have fewer options, and the facilities that remain open are often far away from home for patients and families, particularly in rural areas. Furthermore, insurance company barriers — such as prior authorization requirements put in place by Medicare Advantage plans — are creating harmful delays and denials of necessary and time-sensitive patient care. Consequently, many patients are denied access to an LTCH setting — or transferred to other post-acute care settings like rehabilitation or skilled nursing facilities that aren’t equipped to care for patients with highly complex needs like ventilation.

America’s sickest patients deserve the right level of care at the right time. As this need becomes more urgent by the day, policymakers must work to address these challenges and strengthen access to LTCHs, which help patients get transferred out of the hospital quicker, reduce hospital overcrowding, and ultimately save lives.

— Jim Prister, Chicago; president and CEO of RML Specialty Hospital; chair of the American Hospital Association’s Post-Acute Care Steering Committee

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

“There are enough reports of it, enough interest in it, that we actually did — ivermectin, in particular — did engage in sort of a better preclinical study of its properties and its ability to kill cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, a physician the Trump administration appointed as NCI director in September.

Letai did not cite new evidence that might have prompted the institute to research the effectiveness of the antiparasitic drug against cancer. The drug, largely used to treat people or animals for infections caused by parasites, is a popular dewormer for horses.

“We’ll probably have those results in a few months,” Letai said. “So we are taking it seriously.”

He spoke about ivermectin at a Jan. 30 event, “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” with National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials at Washington, D.C.’s Willard Hotel. The MAHA Institute hosted the discussion, framed by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The National Cancer Institute is the largest of the NIH’s 27 branches.

During the covid pandemic, ivermectin’s popularity surged as fringe medical groups promoted it as an effective treatment. it isn’t effective against covid.

Ivermectin has become a symbol of resistance against the medical establishment among MAHA adherents and conservatives. Like-minded commentators and wellness and other online influencers have hyped — without evidence — ivermectin as a miracle cure for a host of diseases, including cancer. Trump officials have pointed to research on ivermectin as an example of the administration’s receptiveness to ideas the scientific establishment has rejected.

“If lots of people believe it and it’s moving public health, we as NIH have an obligation, again, to treat it seriously,” Bhattacharya said at the event. at Duke University, Bhattacharya recently said he wants the NIH to be “the research arm of MAHA.”

The decision by the world’s premier cancer research institute to study ivermectin as a cancer treatment has alarmed career scientists at the agency.

“I am shocked and appalled,” one NCI scientist said. “We are moving funds away from so much promising research in order to do a preclinical study based on nonscientific ideas. It’s absurd.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News granted the scientist and other NCI workers anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press and fear retaliation.

HHS and the National Cancer Institute did not answer Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ questions on the amount of money the cancer institute is spending on the study, who is carrying it out, and whether there was new evidence that prompted NCI to look into ivermectin as an anticancer therapy. Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said NIH is dedicated to “rigorous, gold-standard research,” something the administration has repeatedly professed.

A preclinical study is an early phase of research conducted in a lab to test whether a drug or treatment may be useful and to assess potential harms. These studies take place before human clinical trials.

The scientist questioned whether there is enough initial evidence to warrant NCI’s spending of taxpayer funds to investigate the drug’s potential as a cancer treatment.

The FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals. Tablets are used to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms, and the FDA has approved ivermectin lotions to treat lice and rosacea. Two scientists involved in its discovery , tied to the drug’s success in treating certain parasitic diseases.

The FDA that large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. Overdoses can cause seizures, comas, or death.

Kennedy, supporters of the MAHA movement, and some conservative commentators have promoted the idea that the government and pharmaceutical companies quashed ivermectin and other inexpensive, off-patent drugs because they’re not profitable for the drug industry.

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote in an that has since gone viral. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Previous laboratory that ivermectin could have anticancer effects because it promotes cell death and inhibits the growth of tumor cells. “It actually has been studied both with NIH funds and outside of NIH funds,” Letai said.

However, there is no evidence that ivermectin is safe and effective in treating cancer in humans. from a small clinical trial that gave ivermectin to patients with one type of metastatic breast cancer, in combination with immunotherapy, found no significant benefit from the addition of ivermectin.

Some physicians are concerned that patients will delay or forgo effective cancer treatments, or be harmed in other ways, if they believe unfounded claims that ivermectin can treat their disease.

“Many, many, many things work in a test tube. Quite a few things work in a mouse or a monkey. It still doesn’t mean it’s going to work in people,” said Jeffery Edenfield, executive medical director of oncology for the South Carolina-based Prisma Health Cancer Institute.

Edenfield said cancer patients ask him about ivermectin “regularly,” mostly because of what they see on social media. He said he persuaded a patient to stop using it, and a colleague recently had a patient who decided “to forgo highly effective standard therapy in favor of ivermectin.”

“People come to the discussion having largely already made up their mind,” Edenfield said.

“We’re in this delicate time when there’s sort of a fundamental mistrust of medicine,” he added. “Some people are just not going to believe me. I just have to keep trying.”

by clinicians at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio detailed how an adolescent patient with metastatic bone cancer started taking ivermectin “after encountering social media posts touting its benefits.” The patient — who hadn’t been given a prescription by a clinician — experienced ivermectin-related neurotoxicity and had to seek emergency care because of nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms.

“We urge the pediatric oncology community to advocate for sensible health policy that prioritizes the well-being of our patients,” the clinicians wrote.

The lack of evidence about ivermectin and cancer hasn’t stopped celebrities and online influencers from promoting the notion that the drug is a cure-all. On a January 2025 episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed that a combination of drugs that included ivermectin cured three friends with stage 4 cancer. The episode has been viewed more than 12 million times.

Lawmakers in a handful of states have made the drug available over the counter. And Florida — which, under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, has become a hotbed for anti-vaccine policies and the spread of public health misinformation — announced last fall that the state plans to fund research .

The Florida Department of Health did not respond to questions about that effort.

Letai, previously a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute oncologist, started at the National Cancer Institute after months of upheaval caused by Trump administration policies.

“What you’re hearing at the NIH now is an openness to ideas — even ideas that scientists would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way it could work’ — but nevertheless applying rigorous scientific methods to those ideas,” Bhattacharya said at the Jan. 30 event.

A second NCI scientist, who was granted anonymity due to fear of retaliation, said the notion that NIH was not open to investigating the value of off-label drugs in cancer is “ridiculous.”

“This is not a new idea they came up with,” the scientist said.

Letai didn’t elaborate on whether NCI scientists are conducting the research or if it has directed funding to an outside institution. Three-quarters of the cancer institute’s research dollars go to outside scientists.

He also aimed to temper expectations.

“At least on a population level,” Letai said, “it’s not going to be a cure-all for cancer.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Brugge lifted up one of the jars and gazed at it with reverence. Each jar holds samples of breast tissue donated by patients after they underwent a tissue biopsy or breast surgery — samples that may reveal a new way to prevent breast cancer.

Brugge and her research team have analyzed the cell structure of more than 100 samples.

Using high-powered microscopes and complex computer algorithms, they diagram each stage in the development of breast cancer: from the first sign of cell mutation to the formation of tiny clusters, well before they are large enough to be considered tumors.

Their quest is to prevent breast cancer, a disease that afflicts roughly 1 in 8 U.S. women over their lifetimes, as well as some men. Their ultimate goal is to relieve the pain, suffering, and risk of death that accompany this disease. And their painstaking work, unspooling across six years of a seven-year, , has yielded results.

In late 2024, Brugge and her colleagues in breast tissue that contain the genetic seeds of breast tumors.

And they discovered that these “seed cells” are surprisingly common. In fact, they are present in the normal, healthy tissue of every breast sample her lab has examined, Brugge said, including samples from patients who haven’t had breast cancer but have had surgery for other reasons, such as breast reduction or a biopsy that proved benign.

The next research challenge for Brugge’s lab is clear: Find ways to detect, isolate, and terminate the mutant cells before they can spread and form tumors.

“I’m excited about what we’re doing right now,” Brugge said. “I think we could make a difference, so I don’t want to stop.”

Work in Brugge’s lab slowed significantly last year. In April, her from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health was frozen, along with virtually all other federal money awarded to Harvard researchers.

The Trump administration said it was withholding the funds of antisemitism on campus.

Some of Brugge’s lab staff lost federal fellowships that funded their work. Brugge told others funded through the NIH grant that she couldn’t guarantee their salaries. In all, Brugge lost seven of her 18 lab employees.

In September, the funding for the NIH grant was restored. But in the intervening months, the Trump administration said Brugge and other Harvard researchers for the next round of multiyear grants.

A federal judge , but Brugge had missed the deadline to apply for renewal. So her current funding will end in August.

Brugge scrambled to secure private funding from foundations and philanthropists. She was then able to reinstate two positions for at least a year — but job applicants are wary.

Across the United States, the future of federal funding for cancer research is uncertain.

President Donald Trump has proposed by nearly 40% in the 2026 fiscal year.

In a , the White House said the “NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.”

But Congress has other plans: The released on Jan. 20 that would set the NIH’s budget at $48.7 billion, $415 million more than in the 2025 fiscal year.

In the meantime, advocates such as with the are reminding lawmakers that the cancer death rate has declined — — due in part to federally funded research advances.

“But we still have an incredible ways to go before we can say that we’ve changed the trajectory of cancer,” Fleury said. “There are still cancer types that are fairly lethal, and there are still populations of people for whom their experience of cancer is vastly different from other groups.”

Reductions in research funding will have a direct impact on treatment options for patients, Fleury said. For example, a 10% cut to the NIH budget would eventually result in two fewer new drugs or treatments per year, according to from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

A recent study looked at drugs that were developed through NIH-funded research and approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2000. More than half those drugs would probably if the NIH had been operating with a 40% smaller budget.

“We can’t say, ‘But for that grant, that [specific] drug would not have come into existence,’” said , a co-author of the study and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But fewer drugs would have made it to market, he said. “It makes us at least want to pause and say, ‘What are we doing here? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot?’”

Amid all the uncertainty, Brugge has trouble focusing on her goal of finding new ways to prevent breast cancer.

Nowadays, she spends about half her time searching for new sources of funding, managing her remaining employees’ anxieties, and monitoring the most recent news about Harvard, the Trump administration, and the NIH and other federal agencies that have experienced grant freezes, staff layoffs, and other disruptions.

She’d rather return her attention to her ongoing investigations, which she’s confident could eventually save lives.

The breakdown of Brugge’s lab highlights another problem: The U.S. is kneecapping the next generation of cancer researchers. Her employees included , postdocs, and graduate students. Of the seven who left the lab in 2025, one left the U.S., one took a job at a health care management company, four went back to school, and one is still looking for work.

One of Brugge’s former staffers, Y., is a computational biologist. She helped design and run a tool that analyzes millions of breast tissue cells from the samples in the pink-lidded jars.

Y. moved to Switzerland in October to begin a PhD program. Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and NPR are identifying her by her middle initial because she plans to return to the U.S. for scientific conferences and worries that speaking publicly about her experience could risk future visa approvals.

“I thought the U.S. would be a safe place for scientists to learn and grow,” said Y., who moved to Boston from abroad for Harvard’s master’s degree program in bioinformatics. “I really hope that those who have the opportunities to study this further can fill in those missing pieces in cancer research.”

Brugge is no longer accepting job applicants from outside the U.S., even if they are top candidates, because she can’t afford to pay the Trump administration’s on visas for some foreign researchers.

The Association of American Universities and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have , claiming the fee is misguided and illegal. The Trump administration said the fee would and improve opportunities for Americans.

Brugge doubts work in her lab will ever return to normal.

“There’ll always be, now, this existential threat to the research,” Brugge said. “I will definitely be concerned because we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future that might trigger a similar kind of action.”

Brugge has thought about shutting down her lab. But she still employs staff members whose future scientific careers are tied to finishing some of the research. And when she looks at those pink-lidded jars, she still sees so much promise.

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Millions of Americans are facing dramatically higher health insurance premium payments due to the Jan. 1 expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. But much of Washington appears more interested at the moment in culture war issues, including abortion and gender-affirming care.

Meanwhile, at the Department of Health and Human Services, personnel continue to be fired and rehired, and grants terminated and reinstated, leaving everyone who touches the agency uncertain about what comes next.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Anna Edney Bloomberg News

Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico

Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress remains undecided on a deal to renew enhanced ACA premium subsidies, as it is on spending plans to keep the federal government running when the existing, short-term plan expires at the end of the month. While some of the bigger appropriations hang-ups are related to immigration and foreign affairs, there are also hurdles to passing spending for HHS.
• ACA plan enrollment is down about 1.5 million compared with last year, with states reporting that many people are switching to cheaper plans or dropping coverage. Enrollment numbers are likely to drop further in the coming months as more-expensive premium payments come due and some realize they can no longer afford the plans they’re enrolled in.
• A key Senate health committee on Wednesday hosted a hearing on the abortion pill mifepristone, focused on the safety concerns posed by abortion foes — though those concerns are unsupported by scientific research and decades of experience with the drug. Many abortion opponents are frustrated that the Trump administration has not taken aggressive action to restrict access to the abortion pill.
• As the Trump administration moved this week to rehire laid-off employees and abruptly cancel, then restore, addiction-related grants, overall government spending is up, despite the administration’s stated goal of saving money by cutting the federal government’s size and activities. It turns out the churn within the administration is costing taxpayers more. And new data, revealing that more federal workers left on their own than were laid off last year, shows that a lot of institutional memory was also lost.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who created the “Bill of the Month” series and wrote the latest installment, about a scorpion pepper, an ER visit, and a ghost bill. If you have a baffling, infuriating, or exorbitant bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “,” by Maxine Joselow.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “,” by Anna Clark.

Joanne Kenen: The New Yorker’s “,” by Dhruv Khullar.

Anna Edney: MedPage Today’s “,” by Joedy McCreary.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “,” by Paul Kane.
• HealthAffairs’ “,” by Mica Hartman, Anne B. Martin, David Lassman, and Aaron Catlin.
• Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• JAMA’s “,” by Sophie Dilek, Joanne Rosen, Anna Levashkevich, Joshua M. Sharfstein, and G. Caleb Alexander.

Credits

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Scientists and advocates for trans rights say the change will make it much harder to understand cancer diagnoses and trends among the trans population. Certain studies have shown that transgender people are more likely to use tobacco products or less likely to receive routine cancer screenings — factors that could put them at higher risk of disease.

The change is a consequence of Trump administration policies recognizing only “male” and “female” sexes, according to cancer researchers.

Scientists said the change will affect all cancer registries, in every state and territory, because they receive federal funding. Starting in 2026, registries funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute as male, female, or not stated/unknown. And federal health agencies will receive data only on cancer patients classified that way.

Registries whether a cancer patient’s sex is “male,” “female,” “other,” various options for “transsexual,” or that the patient’s sex is not stated or unknown.

President Donald Trump in January issued an stating that the government would recognize only male and female sexes. Cancer registry officials said the federal government directed them to revise how they collect data on cancer patients.

“In the U.S., if you’re receiving federal money, then we, essentially, we weren’t given any choice,” Eric Durbin, director of the Kentucky Cancer Registry and president of the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. NAACCR, which receives federal funds, maintains cancer reporting standards across the U.S. and Canada.

Officials will need to classify patients’ sex as unknown when a “patient’s sex is documented as other than male or female (e.g., non-binary, transsexual), and there is no additional information about sex assigned at birth,” the new standard says.

Missing the Big Picture

Researchers said they do not have high-quality population-level data on cancer incidence in transgender people but had been making inroads at improving it — work now at risk of being undone.

“When it comes to cancer and inequities around cancer, you can use the cancer registries to see where the dirtiest air pollution is, because lung cancer rates are higher in those areas. You can see the impact of nuclear waste storage because of the types of cancers that are higher in those ZIP codes, in those areas of the country,” said Shannon Kozlovich, who is on the executive committee of the California Dialogue on Cancer.

“The more parts of our population that we are excluding from this dataset means that we are not going to know what’s happening,” she said. “And that doesn’t mean that it’s not happening.”

For decades, cancer registries have been the most comprehensive U.S. surveillance tool for understanding cancer incidence and survival rates and identifying troubling disease trends. Each year, cancer cases are reported by hospitals, pathology labs, and other health facilities into regional and statewide cancer registries. The compiled data documents cancer and mortality rates among regions, races, sexes, and age groups.

Two federal programs serve as the top authorities on cancer statistics, with information on tens of millions of cases. The CDC’s National Program of Cancer Registries provides funding to organizations in 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Island territories. Its data represents . The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, known as SEER, collects and publishes data from registries covering the U.S. population.

The information published by cancer registries has led to changes in treatment and  prevention, and the enactment of other policies designed to reduce diagnosis rates and mortality.

For example, data collected by cancer registries was essential in identifying among people . As a result, U.S. guidelines that adults start screenings at age 45 rather than 50.

States have enacted their own measures. Lara Anton, spokesperson for the Texas Department of State Health Services, said epidemiologists with the Texas Cancer Registry in 2018 found that the state had the nation’s highest incidence rates of hepatocellular carcinoma, a liver cancer more common in men than women. The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas aimed at reversing rising rates of liver cancer. The Texas Cancer Registry joined SEER in 2021.

“Once a cancer patient is entered into a cancer registry, we follow those patients for the rest of their lives. Because we really need to know, do patients survive for different types of cancer and different stages of cancer?” Durbin said. “That’s incredibly important for public policies.”

The North American Association of Central Cancer Registries maintains national standards outlining what kind of data registries collect for each diagnosis. It develops the list in partnership with the CDC, the National Cancer Institute, and other organizations.

For any given patient, under NAACCR’s standards, Durbin said, registries collect more than 700 pieces of information, including demographics, diagnosis, treatment, and length of survival. CDC and NCI-funded registries must specify the sex of each patient.

The NAACCR definitions and accompanying data standards are designed to ensure that registries collect case data uniformly. “Everyone essentially follows the standards” that NAACCR develops, Durbin said. Although registries can collect state-specific information, researchers said they need to follow those standards when sending cancer data to the federal government.

In an emailed statement, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said, “HHS is using biological science to guide policy, not ideological agendas that the Biden administration perpetrated.”

‘Backwards’ Progress

NAACCR routinely publishes updated guidelines. But the change to the “sex” category to remove transgender options in 2026 was an emergency move due to Trump administration policies, Kozlovich said. She was among a group that had pushed for changes in cancer data collection to account for sex and gender identity as separate data points.

According to an by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, 2.8 million people age 13 and older identify as transgender.

Scientists and trans rights advocates said in interviews that there are troubling signs that may make transgender people more likely to develop cancer or experience worse health outcomes than others.

“Without evidence of our health disparities, you take away any impetus to fix them,” said Scout, executive director of the LGBTQIA+ Cancer Network.

A study published in 2022 found that transgender and gender-diverse populations were as likely as cisgender people to report active use of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, or cigars. Tobacco use is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer.

A concluded in 2019 that transgender patients were less likely to receive recommended screenings for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. And a from researchers at Stanford Medicine found that LGBTQ+ patients were nearly three times as likely to experience breast cancer recurrence as cisgender heterosexual people.

Scarlett Lin Gomez, an epidemiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and the director of the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, said that for at least 10 years the NCI had been interested in improving its ability to monitor cancer burden across patient populations with different sexual orientations and gender identities. Cancer registries are a logical place to start because that is what they’re set up to do, she said.

There’s been “slow but good progress,” Gomez said. “But now we’ve completely, personally, I think, regressed backwards.”

The decision not to capture transgender identity in cancer patients is just one change registries have confronted under the Trump administration, according to scientists leading surveillance efforts and state health agencies. An HHS mandate to reduce spending on contracts led to funding cuts for cancer registries in NCI’s SEER program. Scientists said CDC funds for registries haven’t been cut; however, the White House’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget aims to eliminate funding for the National Program of Cancer Registries.

Among the Trump administration’s other actions targeting trans people are canceling research grants for studies on LGBTQ+ health, dismantling the National Institutes of Health’s office for sexual and gender minority health, and stopping specialized services for LGBTQ+ youth on the 988 national suicide prevention hotline.

Without data, researchers can’t make a case to fund research that may help trans patients, Gomez said. “It’s erasure.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Government documents viewed by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News show a drop in patients receiving care this year at the National Institutes of Health’s renowned research hospital, a 200-bed facility at NIH headquarters in Maryland. 

We previously reported a decrease in the number of patients being treated at the NIH Clinical Center from February through April. Since then, we’ve obtained newer data showing the drop has continued.

As of mid-August, the average daily number of patients treated at the hospital was around 60. There has been a steady drop since February, coinciding with the Trump administration’s mass firings of government employees, its broad immigration crackdown, and the gutting of scientific research.

By contrast, last October, about 80 patients a day, on average, were at the hospital, the documents show.

Current and former government workers cite multiple reasons for the decline. An exodus of clinicians, scientists, and other staffers has limited the number of people who can be treated. Researchers are leaving, which means they’re not recruiting patients to come to the NIH for trials. 

And, the workers say, it’s likely that fewer patients who lack legal status in the U.S. are seeking care at the NIH hospital. That’s because of the Trump administration’s immigration policies and the federal government’s tighter rules for visitors from abroad.

In a statement, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the decline in the number of patients “has been ongoing for years” and the clinical center “remains fully operational and continues to provide world-class clinical research and patient care.”

Are you a cancer patient whose care at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Maryland, or another hospital, has been affected by the Trump administration’s cuts? Are you a family member or caregiver of a cancer patient who has received care at the NIH? We’d like to hear about your experience. Tell us here.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

In , President Donald Trump announced that political officers would have the power to summarily cancel any federal grant, including for scientific work, that is not “consistent with agency priorities.” Senior officials should not “routinely defer” to recommendations from peer reviewers, who have provided the backbone of federal science funding for eight decades.

NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya reinforced the message in an Aug. 15 internal memorandum stating that political priorities may override the scoring system provided by outside experts appointed to hundreds of review panels.

“While the score and critiques an application receives in peer review are important factors in determining the scientific merit of a proposal,” his memo stated, NIH institutes and centers should not rely on the scientific merit rankings “in developing their final pay plans.”

Like ongoing conflicts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Reserve, NIH scientists told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, the disruption of the peer review process represents an attack on agency expertise that the country has relied on for decades.

Although the priorities of top agency staffers have always influenced some NIH funding, those people were nearly always career scientists in the past. By downgrading its peer review process, the NIH could allow political appointees who now occupy key positions to stop grants that typically would be funded, and to fund grants they prefer that don’t necessarily meet rigorous scientific standards, a dozen current and former NIH officials told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Bhattacharya’s guidelines “open the door to the politicization of NIH research,” said Jenna Norton, a program officer in the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

“Peer review is fundamental and makes sure we’re doing the best science,” she said. “If you’re going to ignore that, the political appointee gets to make the final call.”

NIH spokesperson Amanda Fine said that peer review would continue to be the cornerstone of the NIH’s funding decisions but that funding would become less dependent on reviewers’ rankings of grant proposals.

This will “ensure consistent, transparent, and strategic funding decisions that align with the agency’s mission, maximize public health impact, and responsibly steward taxpayer dollars,” she said. Trump’s executive order said peer reviews would be “advisory” only.

Grants to scientists at universities and other research centers make up about 80% of the NIH’s $48 billion budget, with the rest funding internal NIH research. Since 1946, the NIH has doled out funds based mainly on merits established by a scientific review process that ranks each proposal based on innovation, importance, and feasibility.

The peer review process, in which grant proposals scoring above a certain percentile generally receive funding, has always had its critics. Many a Nobel Prize speech has described failures by reviewers to recognize work that would end up leading to pathfinding discoveries, said Carrie Wolinetz, a former NIH chief of staff.

About half of the NIH’s 27 centers and institutes provide leeway to raise or drop grants on the priority list because of factors like institute-wide research goals, Fine said. But these exceptions apply to fewer than 5% of grants, according to Richard Nakamura, who led the NIH’s Center for Scientific Review from 2011 to 2018.

Nakamura’s successor, Noni Byrnes, retired last week after overseeing changes aimed at reducing one frequent target of peer review critics: the awarding of multiple grants to well-placed scientists from top-tier universities.

The Bhattacharya document “itself is not so disturbing in the light of usual practice,” said Harold Varmus, who led the NIH under President Bill Clinton and was the chief of the National Cancer Institute under Barack Obama. “What is disturbing is what it might mean in the context of the current administration.”

The expansion of the Trump administration’s political power at the NIH comes as it has strangled the release of thousands of grants with sometimes ambiguous policy statements and new layers of bureaucracy, including requirements that both the White House and the NIH director opportunities.

Career scientists, who have long run the NIH, have in some instances been replaced by political appointees playing critical roles in scientific decisions, staff scientists say.

New political appointees under Bhattacharya include chief of staff Seana Cranston, a former aide to conservative Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and former Department of Government Efficiency manager James McElroy, Cranston’s deputy. The position of chief operations officer was created and filled by , a political appointee — since fired — who previously had been in charge of business development for a company that sold fitness programs.

Bhattacharya’s deputy, meanwhile, is Matthew Memoli, an infectious disease scientist who emerged as a sharp critic of covid-19 vaccine mandates. The Department of Health and Human Services stunned vaccine experts in May when it awarded Memoli and colleagues a $500 million grant to develop an influenza vaccine using older technology, with no explanation other than a superlative-filled news release.

The mood at the agency is morbid, said Sylvia Chou, a program officer at the National Cancer Institute. While a minority of workers speak out in protest through documents ,” others keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

Most grants must undergo new levels of review by senior NIH employees and the White House, program officers say. Staff members painstakingly police all grant applications for language — such as “diversity” or “climate change” — that might trigger scrutiny by higher-ups, according to four program officers, two of whom Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News agreed not to name because they feared retaliation.

“Bhattacharya has been saying that program officers are making up ,” Norton said. “It’s true, we haven’t gotten a list from him saying, ‘Don’t use these words.’ But we do notice that when a grant says ‘health equity,’ it gets terminated.”

“We review them and screen them for all these words as we’re supposedly not doing — but we are doing,” said a program officer who has been at the NIH for six years. “After we approve them, they go to the grant management office and sit there. Then they send them back and say, ‘What about this word?’” This leads to self-censorship, the officer said.

The officer cited a recent proposal involving the effects of hotter weather on kidney disease. It contained the phrase “climate change” as background information, but “I had them remove it,” the officer said. “It’s a level of absurdity, but I wanted to avoid more delays.”

The peer review process itself is “starting to break down” because highly scored grants haven’t been funded for sometimes obscure reasons, Chou said.

The NIH picks hundreds of deeply experienced external scientists to serve on its review panels. While screened to avoid conflicts of interest, many reviewers are themselves NIH grant recipients. They accept pay of about $200 for 100 hours of work as a kind of social contract with the NIH, said Mollie Manier, a scientist at the Center for Scientific Review.

“We’re finding that people are more likely to decline to serve on review panels because their own grants are frozen, or out of protest at what’s happening at NIH,” Manier said.

Another review officer described approaching a Brown University scientist with a request to serve on a panel recently: “They said normally they would do it, but they’ve lost three grants and need to figure out how to keep their lab running.”

As grants crawl through the system, “reviewers are starting to feel they aren’t being convened for anything real,” Manier said. “If the government cancels your grant for no good reason, you can’t expect a good-faith effort anymore.”

“It’s death by a thousand paper cuts, anything they can do to gum up payments, to gum up the decision-making, to wrest control of grant decisions from the career scientists,” said Elizabeth Ginexi, an NIH program officer for 22 years who took early retirement in April.

Fine, the NIH spokesperson, said the agency had “no evidence that recruiting peer reviewers has become more difficult than in the past.”

The administration’s skepticism of peer review feeds doubts NIH scientists already had because of what they saw as irrational villainizing of mRNA vaccines and other matters — including Memoli’s vaccine award.

Although in-house NIH research isn’t subject to the same review process as external grants, Memoli’s grant left officials aghast. “I’m not aware of a process that awards $500 million for a project using antiquated technology to develop vaccines,” one seasoned reviewer said.

Trump’s executive order says the grant review process “undermines the interests of American taxpayers,” leaving many good proposals unfunded while supporting “too much unfocused research of marginal social utility.”

“The opposite is true,” the seasoned reviewer said. “We make sure taxpayer money goes to the most high-impact research.”

“Alignment” is a word the Trump administration frequently uses to explain why an official got fired or research was rejected. Chou finds it appalling.

“The Chinese Communists call it ‘harmonization,’” she said, and now her colleagues speak routinely about grants that are “clean” because they’ve “gone through alignment.”

“We’re saying this in plain English,” she said. “Not Russian, not Beijing Chinese.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .